DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (CN 110792648) in view of Seetharaman et al. (US 5,571,248) and Weh (US 2013/0319562).
In Re claim 1, Bai et al. disclose a valve (fig. 1), comprising: a valve body having an output port (see line connecting to 1122); a pressure supply port (see line connected to pump 1111); and a tank port (see tank port of 1121); an electrohydraulic valve spool (see 1121) having a return spring (see spring on side of valve 1121) and feedback (see feedback lines on 1121); and a pressure reducing valve (1113) between the supply and the spool valve. Although Bai et al. disclose feedback lines for the electrohydraulic valve, Bai et al. fail to specifically disclose a feedback pin. Bai et al. also fail to disclose a monoblock valve housing.
Seetharaman et al. is related to the art of electrohydraulic valves, and teaches providing such a valve with a feedback pin (52), which mechanically converts the spool's mechanical displacement into a feedback force, allowing the valve to maintain precise position control proportional to an input signal by balancing forces. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrohydraulic valve of Bai et al. to include a feedback pin, as taught by Seetharaman et al., simply to allow for precise and accurate control of the valve.
Weh is related to the art of hydraulic valve systems, and teaches providing a monoblock valve housing (15), which are preferred in hydraulic systems primarily for their integrated, single-piece construction, which offers several distinct advantages over modular or sectional alternatives, including increased space and installation efficiency, reduced cost, increased structural robustness, and weight reduction. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydraulic system of Bai et al. to employ a monoblock valve system housing design, as taught by Weh, as it provides the distinct advantages of increased space and installation efficiency, reduced cost, increased structural robustness, and weight reduction.
In Re claim 3, the solenoid is electronically controlled.
In Re claims 4 and 5, see electrohydraulic spool valve (1121) and it’s three ports, of Bai et al..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-16 are hereby allowed.
Claims 2 and 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights